What is best, image stabilization or aperture?

T

Thoughtshepherd

Suspended / Banned
Messages
25
Name
Lee Bond
Edit My Images
No
I am shooting a 40d and I want to upgrade my lenses to L glass. I am looking to buy the 70 200 lens first. I can't afford the 2.8 IS, so I have to choose the f4 IS or the 2.8 unstabilised.

Any ideas
 
Pointless asking whats the best lens without letting us know what you will be shooting

eg for sport the IS is usless and so 2.8

Will you be shooting in low light, fast things, still things..
 
As eluded to the IS will not freeze subject movement, only camera movement. So moving subjects still need a fast shutter speed, which means higher ISO or wider aperture.

Subject isolation with the 2.8 will be better (more pronounced background blur and shorter DOF wide open).

IS really is good if, like me, you have shaky hands though. Also the IS variant is weather sealed.

There's always the non-IS F4 for half the price :thumbs:
 
pearce_jj said:
As eluded to the IS will not freeze subject movement, only camera movement. So moving subjects still need a fast shutter speed, which means higher ISO or wider aperture.

Subject isolation with the 2.8 will be better (more pronounced background blur and shorter DOF wide open).

IS really is good if, like me, you have shaky hands though. Also the IS variant is weather sealed.

There's always the non-IS F4 for half the price :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, this will help me to finally decide, then I only have to convince the wife :help:
 
Thoughtshepherd said:
Thanks for the info, this will help me to finally decide, then I only have to convince the wife :help:
Click to expand...


Hello, i know how you feel !! I also have a 40D, and would love a 70-200, i keep changing my mind on which one to buy !! I think in the end it will be a F2.8 version, IS or non IS depending on how much the wife shouts at me ! :eek:
 
IS (VR to us 'darker chaps' :D) is fantastic for those with too much camera movement at lower shutter speeds, but as it only stops your wobbly problem it's no use if the subject is moving about too

I have a 70-200 f2.8 VR and find that I only use the VR bit inside darker churches with miserable vicars who won't let me get closer due to (they say) the disruptive noise of a shutter firing!!!

Anyway, my point is that unless you are after low light & slow shutter speed combinations where the subject isn't moving much too, IS/VR is an expensive folly

Best way to hold a 70-200 still on the move... one of those gas damped Monopods, they are fab and remove the need for IS/VR

Consider... my 70-200 VR is about £1,100 the non-VR equivalent is £600 and the Monopod about £100-£150

The non IS/VR lenses are smaller & lighter too than their stabilised equivalents and they drain your batteries far less. If I was buying for the 1st time now I wouldn't bother with VR

HTH :shrug:

DD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top